Evolution is the biggest lie ever told !

Post Reply New Topic

You do know the smartest physicists on the planet struggle to solve it today.

I responded to everything you said. Go back, and re-read the thread.

Yet an Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. If you don't believe in logic, then why complain about Ad hominems?

Your definition of an ad hominem fallacy is absolutely correct but that is not what that guy did. Did you even watch the video? Yes, it did imply that you were a conspiracy nut but it was not in place of an argument. It brought up many good points about fallibility and the distinction between science and pseudo-science.


Actually, the "form a hypothesis" stage is a very important part of the scientific method and without theoretical physics experimental physicists would have nothing to test.

Yes, the scientific method is not guaranteed to be 100% accurate but such is the nature of knowledge. Maybe I am in a simulation that started 12 seconds ago complete with all my memories, I can't disprove that but that is where Occam's razor and fallibility come in. I know I keep beating this dead horse ans I will continue to do so until it sinks in, science is still the best system we have despite it's flaws.


Science has been my special interest for ages now, none of this is new information to me. Yes, Newton's laws of motion however good approximations they may be are just that, approximations. It is also widely believed that general relativity and quantum mechanics are approximations for some as yet undiscovered theory that can predict things where the existing theories fail like the centers of black holes and in the first nanoseconds after the big bang. But do you know why we know that? It's because of science and it's tendency to correct it's self. I never said science was perfect, but it remains the best way we have of figuring things out. Science correcting it's self is a feature, not a bug. It certainly would be great to be able to know the absolute truth about everything with no possibility of being wrong but unless you have any suggestions about how to do that I am going to stick with the next best thing.





I assume you are talking about the various interpretations of quantum mechanics with the most popular being the Copenhagen interpretation but alternate ones being many worlds and pilot waves. Science has already done it's job here, Schrödinger's equations can predict exactly how a probability wave moves and interacts and quantum theory has predictive power that just keeps on getting confirmed.

Science is all about predictive power which is what makes a theory useful both for predicting the future and creating technology. The rest is just fun facts, it's fun to know but without predictive power it's absolutely useless. That is the case with which which interpretation of quantum mechanics is right, currently they all predict the same thing and as such science can't differentiate them and even if it could there would be no point. However, if any testable differences can be found then that both makes it possible for science to test it and makes there be a point to knowing which one is right because it effects observable reality.

I didn't complain. It's common here.

However, it doesn't advance the discussion.

Let me rephrase. Why did you point out a logical fallacy if you don't believe in logic? Do you or don't you believe that logic has an objective value or applicability?

It's all very weird to me. I'm trying to understand you.

The guy in the video did not make the post, so I was not addressing the guy in the video.


There is nothing to "test" in theoretical physics.

It's pure conjecture.


Again, whether science has hurt us or helped us is philosophical.

People like the Unambomber (see: Unabomber manifesto) disagree with you.

My point has consistently been that most scientists are con men who pretend to know how reality works.


You're doing the very thing that I am talking about.

You are presenting scientific theories as truth.

NO. Physicists don't know how reality functions. They can't even agree on the quantum model, whether deterministic or probabilistic.


You're making grossly incorrect statements.

No, they don't "all predict the same thing".

The quantum models have a fundamental distinction: some predict the nature of reality is ultimately deterministic, and some predict the nature of reality is fundamentally probabilistic.

So if the video is not using an ad homenim then what's the problem here? What's wrong with "I have an argument but this guy already said it really well so I'll just put that here". From the looks of things you are going out of your way to take offense to this and using the fact that you are offended to say that it's an ad hominem.


Yes there is, the whole point of theoretical physics is to come up with ways to test it and turn it into regular physics. Take relativity for example, Einstein first came up with his hypothesis entirely using math going off of the predictions of Maxwell's electromagnetism equations that the speed of light is constant and in doing so came up a detailed theory about how this could be possible. After that people took that hypothesis and started testing it's predictions which have consistently matched predictions, and now it has moved into the realm of accepted physics. If Einstein didn't create an entirely hypothetical theory first this wouldn't have happened. I don't get what's so hard to grasp here. Sure, theoretical physics is still in the early stages of the scientific method but you have to start somewhere.


My point is not that science has helped society (which I would argue that it has considering that this is literally the most peaceful time in human history contrary to what the media would have you believe), my point is that it works. Even if we use something that most people agree is very harmful like nuclear weapons, they still only work because the science behind them is solid. If the science behind them didn't work then they would be glorified hunks of metal that couldn't do much harm or good. For the sake of this argument I don't care if science has had a good or a bad effect on society, I am just arguing that it works well enough to have an effect on society at all.

That has always been my counter argument to your argument, if scientists are con men then how come they keep making stuff that works?


I'm not saying that science is truth nor have I ever said that anywhere, I'm saying that established theories are consistent with observable reality because they make predictions that consistently come true. Either reality is in on the con or science works, take your pick.


That is exactly the type of "fun facts" I was talking about. How exactly would you go about empirically measuring how predetermined an event was? Maybe I was destined to send you this exact message since the beginning of time or maybe I wasn't, what does it matter? Even in the deterministic pilot wave interpretation the math still gives probabilities because it's impossible to know the exact initial conditions due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principal. This is why all interpretations are completely indistinguishable, they predict the same things.

The interpretations of quantum mechanics don't predict that reality is fundamentally deterministic or random, because in order for it to be considered a prediction it must have measurable effects on observable reality. If something doesn't measurably effect observable reality then on top of being impossible to know it is also completely pointless even if you could know it. It would be just a "fun fact". It is possible that a measurable difference could be found between the various interpretations but until that day there is no physically possible way to know.

Quantum mechanic didn't threw out 300 years of scientific method, it don't work that way. Sure, there is some incertitudes on a particle speed and position, but even Newton mechanic deal with incertitude, not coming from matter inherent properties in this case but from instruments limit on accuracy.
Quantum mechanic can and has been tested by using statistic on multiple particles interactions and with great, if not insane, accuracy.

By the way, many features of quantum mechanic can be reproduced with silicon droplets, showing how deterministic mechanic can work in quantum physic under certain conditions.

Quauntum suggests that matter functions probabilistically, not deterministically as science thought for hundreds of years. This is why the scientific formulas change when dealing with quantum, to account for probabilistic behavior.

This has nothing to do with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal (HUP) which is what you are referring to. HUP is uncertain, not because of "limits on instrument accuracy", but because the light photon used to measure something is much larger than a particle you intend to measure. So when you view a particle from a light source, the light photons from the light source affect the particle you mean to measure, they smash into the particle, and change its momentum.

Sure, there is still some possibility of deterministic explanation, as some QM models still theorize determinism, however, the Bell Theorem suggests Einstein's "local hidden variables" are not possible.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... heories-lh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

Determinists hang onto "remote hidden variables" ... that there are variables built into reality that tells QM to do the stuff it does, so that it only appears to be probabilistic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory


If you accept that nature is probabilistic, than deterministic formulas don't work , except for rare, isolated behavior.

So....because evolution is "probabilistic," it is therefore "deterministically" a lie?

What do you believe accounts for our existence?

-Like the psychiatry scientist who drugs your kid on Ritalin, and says, "this will make your kid work".
-Like the drug scientist who puts out harmful drugs -- that I see lawyers on television everyday about-- and tells you, "This will fix you".
-Like the food scientists that tells us "don't worry about these additives, they're safe" until they're not and they ban them later.
-Like the nuclear scientist that dumps nuclear waste in the water (which they do) and tells you, "its OK it's only minimal".
-Like the cigarette scientist that tells you smoking is not harmful.
-Like the phone company scientists that makes phones that produce enough heat to cause cancer.
-Like the telecommunications scientists that built EM power lines near your home, and tell you, "don't worry this doesn't cause cancer", despite research that it does.

After what I said here, do you really believe all the the electrical engineer scientists that tell us cumulative WIFI is not harmful?


You're right.

However, I was referring to modern theoretical physics.

space-time, string theory, multi-verse, alternate quantum realities, quantum deterministic/deterministic behavior, multitude of dimensions to reality .... it's all theory and no way to test it.

We're reaching the limit to what's possible to test as an insider to this reality.

This is why I wish we could travel to distant galaxies....and to explore things like black holes....to test those theories.

I believe evolution is so much a "probability" that I, personally, feel like it's a "certainty."

I don't believe in the infallibility of science---but the Scientific Method is almost always much better than pure conjecture, or a sole reliance on "faith."

No one knows.

"Quantum biology" is an emerging field.

This professor explains how "photosynthesis" explained by your science teacher as a deterministic process, might be a quantum process.

Well...the bottom line is that you (lovenothate) think that evolution is wrong.

So its "wrong" as opposed to something else that is not wrong.

So what is this something else that is not wrong?

So LoveNotHate thinks Evolution is a lie, science is a lie, as with anything else, eh?

Has anyone ever considered the fact that the creation story and evolution can co-exist?

Most Christians consider that the earth, and all the inhabitants therein were created in 7 24 hour dayd. However, Genesis does not define the length of a day anywhere in the narrative. St. Paul makes the observation in one of his epistles that a day with YHWH is like a million years, and a million years to YHWH is like a day. So, from my perspective, as a sour, dour Lutheran, I see no problem with the two stories of "la creation du monde" co-existing.